The word JUWES

[RivkahChaya]

If I recall correctly, Warren sought the advice of the Chief rabbi on the word/spelling and published a letter saying it was not known. [Somone might correct me or provide a reference.]

I'm not really sure what advice the chief rabbi could offer, other than to say that the spelling had no special meaning, in that it wasn't from So-and-so's translation of a particular text, or it wasn't the spelling used in another European country, or that in had no numerological meaning, inasmuch as Roman letters have no mystic meaning in Judaism.

The chief rabbi might even have a better idea than other people of historical spelling of that particular word, such as what spellings Chaucer used, although I'd be more inclined to check with a professor of literature on that one.

What the chief rabbi wouldn't know is what random mistake someone might make, and whether it was in any way reasonable, or whether someone trying to make fun of an immigrant's broken English and poor writing might spell it that way.

[Bridewell]

Abberline

Also the fact that Abberline was placed on the scandal case is very worrying

.
In what way is it "worrying" that an experienced and capable detective was involved in two high profile crime enquiries? It's quite usual, even today.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Phil H]

Has anyone ever questioned Eddy's involvement with Cleveland Street?

But where, Abberline apart, is any connection to the Whitechapel murders?

Are we to take it that all the case a police officer investigates in his life are LINKED because of his personal involvement?

Edited to add, Abberline also believed that Chapman/Klosowski was JtR, if you believe quotes attributed to him. Was Chapman at the top of society then?


Phil H

[moonbegger]

If you read Prince Eddy and the Homosexual underworld Book, there is very strong evidence he was associated with the Cleveland street scandal, the author found out his file was personally destroyed on order in the archives. While he is not the ripper, he was associated with cleaveland street,maybe the basis of the later story. Also the fact that Abberline was placed on the scandal case is very worrying.

Yes especially , when we look at an interview Abberline supposedly gave !

Morland claimed that Abberline told him that the case was shut and that "I've given my word to keep my mouth permanently closed about it." Abberline went on to say that "I know and my superiors know certain facts."and that the Ripper "...wasn't a butcher, Yid or foreign skipper...you'd have to look for him not at the bottom of London society at the time but a long way up."

Martin ,

If we put aside the royal conspiracy,marriage,babies etc, then what reason would the Freemasons have for killing prostitutes?
All the best.

Don't know Martin , Don't even know if it was Freemason(s). Like i said , lets just look at what is there .

cheers

moonbegger .

[Phil H]

You have to remember that, before the publication of Dr Johnson's DICTIONARY in the mid 18th Century, there was no standardised or proper spelling of any word.

People wrote as they pronounced words - so dislaect coloured their spelling. Nor was there any consistency even by individuals in regard to their name - Shakespeare's name is spelled differently in each of the six or seven examples we have.

So I place no interpretation on any medieval spelling of any word. Juwes, Jewes, or any other variant are (or were) acceptable in that frame of reference.

For my mind , Ol Walter may have been aware of, or heard of, a few inside stories on the Ripper murders ( personal or second hand information) then maybe coloured in a few missing pieces himself ( as people do ) and ended up with a fully sketched out and coloured portrait of the Ripper murders .

Entirely speculative. All we know is that Walter Sickert - who wasn't "Ol' Walter" at the time, of course, seems to have had an abiding interest in the JtR murders and other similar crimes in his lifetime. That tells us nothing. the main embroiderer in fact may have been Joseph Gorman (Sickert) - who claimed to be Walter's illegitimate son, IIRC. Whether he was, I know not. He seems to have woven some pieces into th story, which he later denied. he then came up, later with another DIFFERENT conspiracy theory, involving Lord Randolph Churchill, and based on the alleged diaries of an Abberline who didn't know the order of his own initials.

In my opinion, the best thing to be done with such a tissue of innuendo is to put it aside unless or until any actual facts that emerge suggest parts of it might have merit.

Ok .. fair enough ! so what do we do now ? throw out all the pieces that do actually fit well together along with the pieces that dont ! ( baby and the bathwater ) Do we really have such an abundance of evidence pertaining to the Whitechapel murderer that we can afford to do this ? I think NOT !

That is a VERY dangerous approach, if I might say so. It is used sometimes in connection with ancient history/legends such as Robin Hood or King Arthur where there are few sources or only the surviving legends. The interpretations that emerge might be interesting, entertaining or amusing - even stimulating - but they are NOT history and cannot be relied upon.

We should start by putting aside the whole Royal conspiracy , Marriages , babies , Whatever , even the Sickert , Anderson involvement , and concentrate on what fits and what does not fit .

But how do we make the choices and who makes them? It is simply inconsistent to dismiss what one individually does not like, and chose what seems appealing to study. There HAS TO BE some previously adopted criteria against which to make those choices. What should those criteria be?

Remove all the ill fitting pieces from the table and leave just the solid unquestionable facts ..

Little in this case fits that description.

The thing is , we don't actually need to have all the pieces in front of us .. 122 years on , its not about the elaborate story , the fully painted picture , or even the completed jigsaw puzzle .. Its all about whats on the table in front of us , and how we interpret it .. hopefully without predispositions , allegiances or herd mentality .

But with respect that seems to be the approach you have taken in the preceding paragraph on which I commented (re criteria).

It exists in the British Museum Library (just down the road from Whitechapel)

Firstly, I wouldn't describe the BM as just "down the road" from Whitechapel!! secondly, I don't see the relevance of the point. The Bodleian certainly doesn't fit that description.

What SPECIFICALLY is in the BM and the Bodleian (sic) Library, Oxford?

Who would know of this term "Juwes", in 1888? I ASSUME scholars of the ilk of Warren, Anderson, and of course, the Chief Rabbi.

If I recall correctly, Warren sought the advice of the Chief rabbi on the word/spelling and published a letter saying it was not known. [Somone might correct me or provide a reference.]

To conclude, I believe we should put the whole of Knight's/Sickert's/Gorman's account to one side, along with the GSG. Both serve only to muddy the waters and have no proven connection with the case.

Phil H

[martin wilson]

If we put aside the royal conspiracy,marriage,babies etc, then what reason would the freemasons have for killing prostitutes?
All the best.

[Krinoid]

If you read Prince Eddy and the Homosexual underworld Book, there is very strong evidence he was associated with the Cleveland street scandal, the author found out his file was personally destroyed on order in the archives. While he is not the ripper, he was associated with cleaveland street,maybe the basis of the later story. Also the fact that Abberline was placed on the scandal case is very worrying.

[moonbegger]

On the Masonic elements of the claims, after Knight linked the word "JUWES" to the so-called "ruffians" who murdered Hiram Abiff, master builder of Solomon's temple, there was categorical denial that the word had ever been so-used. There was a report I recall that it might have had currency in the USA, but it was never used in Britain.

There was also this one Phil ,

Simply put, the word "Juwe" and "Juwes" existed prior to the use of the word "Jew". This word "Jew" appears in the English language after the translation of the bible (King James) from Latin into Anglo-Saxon (English). Hence it is a relatively modern transliteration of the Hebrew, "Iudhi/Iudha".
Ergo, the word "Juwes" existed as the term for those referred to in historical documentation as "Jews" long long ago...and surprising, during 1888 and even TODAY! It exists in the British Museum Library (just down the road from Whitechapel) and the Bodlian Library, Oxford (just up the road from Whitechapel), in fact, up and down, and in me Laydis Chamber.
Who would know of this term "Juwes", in 1888? I ASSUME scholars of the ilk of Warren, Anderson, and of course, the Chief Rabbi.
Hic Rhodus hic saltus!

cheers,

moonbegger .

[moonbegger]

Hi Phil ,

On the Masonic elements of the claims, after Knight linked the word "JUWES" to the so-called "ruffians" who murdered Hiram Abiff, master builder of Solomon's temple, there was categorical denial that the word had ever been so-used. There was a report I recall that it might have had currency in the USA, but it was never used in Britain.

I am curious as to what you make of this article by Rosie O'ryan ..

As you are well aware, the term "Juwes", exists in medieval manuscripts pertaining to that people who refer to themselves as "Jews" yet transliteration variation in this period uses the the term "Juwes". Since Freemasonary bases its foundation on manuscripts of this earlier period...not the 19th century...we may assume that this term "Juwes" could be a direct reference to the three enigmatic figures in the medieval lore of earlier Freemasonary, i.e., the construction of the House of Wisdom, aka, 'Solomon's Temple'. This era of frenetic philological speculation of those three rogues was long before the birth of America and Freemasonary in general.
Gosh, we have so much to learn about alphabetical desires, in general. But I guess Warren knew better than we do...since he was an expert on medieval manuscripts about the "Juwes" and the "Temple of Solomon".
As Ever, Rosey :-)

I am in Agreement with you Phil , that a lot of Stephen Knights book is factually flawed .. However there is also much that is not factually flawed ..

For my mind , Ol Walter may have been aware of, or heard of, a few inside stories on the Ripper murders ( personal or second hand information) then maybe coloured in a few missing pieces himself ( as people do ) and ended up with a fully sketched out and coloured portrait of the Ripper murders . Unfortunately for him, and us all , the many pieces to the jigsaw puzzle that were slotted into replace the missing pieces have been shown to not actually fit too well ...

Ok .. fair enough ! so what do we do now ? throw out all the pieces that do actually fit well together along with the pieces that dont ! ( baby and the bathwater ) Do we really have such an abundance of evidence pertaining to the Whitechapel murderer that we can afford to do this ? I think NOT !

We should start by putting aside the whole Royal conspiracy , Marriages , babies , Whatever , even the Sickert , Anderson involvement , and concentrate on what fits and what does not fit . Remove all the ill fitting pieces from the table and leave just the solid unquestionable facts ..

The thing is , we don't actually need to have all the pieces in front of us .. 122 years on , its not about the elaborate story , the fully painted picture , or even the completed jigsaw puzzle .. Its all about whats on the table in front of us , and how we interpret it .. hopefully without predispositions , allegiances or herd mentality .

cheers all

moonbegger .

[RivkahChaya]

Schoolboy hand is a reference to the copperplate style taught at the time.

Ah. Americans really need a British to American glossary, because at one time, I thought "schoolboy hand" meant the message was printed, rather than written in longhand. Then i thought it meant that the police suspected the writer wasn't so bright, or was trying to appear that way.

Had the public schools recently switched from teaching something else, to teaching copperplate, so that copperplate dtaed the writer-- he was either someone who had left school recently, or who had learned to write as an adult? Would someone, say, older than 25, or 30, write in a different style?

In the US, public schools still taught cursive until very recently, but states have been dropping it. However, elementary schools stopped teaching "penmanship" in the 1960s, so that in the 1980s, those of us taught cursive in the 70s, and made to use it, but not really master it, and never taught to use a fountain to produce a quality script, were allowed to print our written work in high school, for the sake of clarity. Word processing was in the offing, and since about 1990, no one in high school has written papers by hand, only exams, pretty much solely in print.

So you can date people's handwriting by first, whether or not they use cursive (longhand)-- someone over 50, second, print with some features of cursive-- 35-50, or last, use just block printing-- under 35. Those ages are approximate, and don't allow for people educated abroad, or in private schools to have been taught something different, or simply for someone to have a personal quirk, but you get the general idea.

[Monty]

The black bricks upon which the writing was found are engineering bricks.

Often used at the base of a building to counter the damp, they do not absorb water like regular building brick. They are more compact and the surface is far less porous.

Easier to wipe off.

Schoolboy hand is a reference to the copperplate style taught at the time.


Monty

[Phil H]

Leaving aside the fact that Knight, despite having been told that his research was seriously flawed, published his JtR book. Much of what he claimed about Annie Crook (for instance, her catholicism) is now known to be wrong. The credentials of the book are thus whiolly undermined.

The basis of the conspiracy are also not credible. Under the Royal Marriages Act (passed in the 1770s by George III), those in line to the throne have to seek approval of the Sovereign before marrying - any marriage which does not receive this is thus illegal. (Hence George IV's secret marriage to Maria Fitzherbert, undertaken when he was Prince of Wales, was not technically valid.)

That case alone showed that the Royal Family did not need to murder those involved. Maria Fitzherbert (a catholic) outlived her husband.

In the case of Eddy (PAV) his instability and erratic behaviour were well known and he had told the Queen of his intention (never fulfilled) to marry Helene of Orleans, a catholic.

On the Masonic elements of the claims, after Knight linked the word "JUWES" to the so-called "ruffians" who murdered Hiram Abiff, master builder of Solomon's temple, there was categorical denial that the word had ever been so-used. There was a report I recall that it might have had currency in the USA, but it was never used in Britain.

So Knight's theory is flawed both in conception and in the "facts" it claims to draw on. He was an unreliable author (though a good writer) with a huge malice towards the freemasons. as demonstrated by his follow-up book, The Brotherhood.

Phil H

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Stephen Knight's book was major bollocks.

That's all there is to know.

Regards,

Simon

[Errata]

As I understand it, the marriage WAS illegal, as no royal or heir can marry a Catholic, or be married by Catholic rites. So despite the veneer of legitimacy, according to the constitution, the marriage never happened.

[RivkahChaya]

How about none? The whole masonic conspiracy theory is nonsense. Fascinating nonsense perhaps - but still nonsense.

Regards, Bridewell.

I've never even entirely understood it, and I've seen Murder by Decree several times, not to mention owning a copy of Knight's book. I don't know whether the theory is muddled, or I'm just dense.

As far as I can tell, it includes the following extreme improbabilities: someone entrusted five alcoholic women who would do pretty much anything for a shilling with a highly guarded secret, then, after they had demonstrated that they could manage to keep it, decided to kill them anyway, and in such a way as would implicate themselves, rather than cover their tracks.

The heir to the throne could get married on a whim, and instead of just annulling it, as having been illegal, as it's my understanding that all spouses of heirs to the throne have to go through some sort of approval committee, the government decides to cover it up, and to cover it up with murder; however, not the expedient murder of the bride in question, but of the women who know something. I mean, if the bride is dead, the prince is off the hook; even if she is murdered, as long as he can't be implicated, the situation is over and done with. However, I'm not sure why the marriage isn't simply invalid. Even if the woman had a child, she wouldn't be the first royal mistress to have a child out of wedlock.

But I'm an American. Maybe it's a British thing I just don't get.